https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100449
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100452
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100459
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 regression] |[10/11/12 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100460
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] mingw|[11/12 Regression][modules]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100461
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100463
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Why would you want to have a hash_map GTY(())ed at all? For PCH?!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100464
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100466
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
--- Comment #3 from R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99649
Stanislav Šimek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stanislav.simek at siemens dot
com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100466
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |c++
Summary|compilation of assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100466
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77443
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at mengyan1223 dot wang
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99649
--- Comment #6 from Stanislav Šimek ---
So isn't it gcc problem?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100464
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
So the difference is that 'b' is TREE_ADDRESSABLE with -g but not without.
in forwprop2 we do
- # DEBUG j$40 => MEM [(int *[33] *)&*.LC0{&} + 40B]
+ # DEBUG j$40 => &b{&}
and that makes b TREE_ADDRESS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77443
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-05-07
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100464
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46691
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77443
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100445
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:323b18d54b960d3ef64f60ad20838ef958334dc0
commit r12-582-g323b18d54b960d3ef64f60ad20838ef958334dc0
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100467
Bug ID: 100467
Summary: [12 regression] g++.dg/debug/dwarf2/thunk1.C
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100467
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100468
Bug ID: 100468
Summary: set_up_extended_ref_temp via extend_ref_init_temps_1
drops TREE_ADDRESSABLE
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100445
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:92f372f00936a549de2cb9764eee722bb07959ba
commit r12-583-g92f372f00936a549de2cb9764eee722bb07959ba
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Fri M
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100379
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-05-07
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100468
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100468
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99037
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3a9504e1f03bc2980062dc62261212e8635bcf93
commit r9-9519-g3a9504e1f03bc2980062dc62261212e8635bcf93
Author: Kyrylo Tkachov
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100441
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3a9504e1f03bc2980062dc62261212e8635bcf93
commit r9-9519-g3a9504e1f03bc2980062dc62261212e8635bcf93
Author: Kyrylo Tkachov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99808
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3a9504e1f03bc2980062dc62261212e8635bcf93
commit r9-9519-g3a9504e1f03bc2980062dc62261212e8635bcf93
Author: Kyrylo Tkachov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99037
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:64b6b1d1bc796a7fea189a4c4b0e290540f51ae3
commit r8-10956-g64b6b1d1bc796a7fea189a4c4b0e290540f51ae3
Author: Kyrylo Tkachov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100441
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:64b6b1d1bc796a7fea189a4c4b0e290540f51ae3
commit r8-10956-g64b6b1d1bc796a7fea189a4c4b0e290540f51ae3
Author: Kyrylo Tkachov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99808
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Kyrylo Tkachov
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:64b6b1d1bc796a7fea189a4c4b0e290540f51ae3
commit r8-10956-g64b6b1d1bc796a7fea189a4c4b0e290540f51ae3
Author: Kyrylo Tkachov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100441
--- Comment #12 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Should be fixed on GCC 8 and 9 branches now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92621
--- Comment #14 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa
---
On 28/04/21 18:49, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Did you log in with your @gcc.gnu.org account?
>
Yes, changing the login email seems to have done the trick.
Thank you very much for you
ld=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
--host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
--with-ld=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-ld
--with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r12-581-20210507001633-gcfe82a0cbe7-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-amd64
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd
gcc version 12.0.0 20210507 (experimental) (GCC)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100468
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 7 May 2021, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100468
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100469
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-05-07
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100468
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I meant something like
struct S { constexpr S () : s (0), t (0), u(0) {} constexpr S (int x, int y,
int z) : s (x), t (y), u (z) {} int s, t, u; };
constexpr S bar () { return S (0, 1, 2); }
bool
foo (void)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100468
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Though it is static and what you're talking about is making automatic into
static. So guess we would need automatic temporary with something like { 1, 2,
3 } initializer and have reference bind to that temp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100470
Bug ID: 100470
Summary: std::is_nothrow_move_constructible incorrect behavior
for explicitly defaulted members
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
URL: https://godbolt.org/z
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100471
Bug ID: 100471
Summary: #pragma omp taskloop with
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100441
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100304
--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Sojka ---
I can't reproduce this anymore on r12-581 ; but it still reproduces for me on
the 11-branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100471
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100461
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Daniel Starke from comment #4)
> Created attachment 50772 [details]
> rdtsc.c
>
> Please find attached the mingw-w64 file.
Please change
#if !__has_builtin(__rdtsc)
to
#if !__has_builtin(__rdtsc)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100347
--- Comment #15 from Erik Schnetter ---
When I try to rebuild GCC 10.3 or 10.2, they end up having the same problem.
Also, when I enable bootstrapping, bootstrapping fails with differences in many
files. Given that this used to work on a previou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80878
--- Comment #33 from Niall Douglas ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #31)
>
> Again the problem is stuff like:
> static const _Atomic __int128_t t = 2000;
>
> __int128_t g(void)
> {
> return t;
> }
>
> DOES NOT WORK if you use CAS
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100472
Bug ID: 100472
Summary: [C++17] Wrong template non-type argument handling on
function reference to noexcept functions
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100472
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97420
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||frankhb1989 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97420
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100471
--- Comment #2 from Tom Vander Aa ---
Thanks Jakub. Let me know when I can do something.
-Wno-pedantic,
Tom
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99686
--- Comment #7 from Steven Sun ---
After digging for two days, I think I may know what's happening inside.
Under std=c++20 and my code in comment 1, the flow when parsing a full function
specialization would be
1. Found a full specialization o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100464
--- Comment #5 from Chengnian Sun ---
I have a question. If the test program has undefined behaviors, is GCC still
expected to emit the same binary code for compilation with and without debug
symbols?
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100464
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100464
--- Comment #7 from Chengnian Sun ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> Yes.
Great. Thanks. We have a bunch of such test programs. I will report them
shortly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100347
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Erik Schnetter from comment #15)
> One thing that e.g. changed is that there is now a newer version of Apple
> Clang.
XCode 12.5 is broken, with compare-debug error : see PR100340 (already repo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100464
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
gcc has the -fcompare-debug option, which compiles twice, once with -g and once
with -g -gtoggle and compares result, anything that fails with that option with
an error about debug vs. non-debug differences
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100464
--- Comment #9 from Chengnian Sun ---
Thanks for the tip. We will use that flag.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100467
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100473
Bug ID: 100473
Summary: O2 vs optimization flags
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100467
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
> so it is not possible to debug those functions
Aehm, i meant of course it is _now_ possible
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80878
--- Comment #34 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Niall Douglas from comment #33)
> Re: your original point, I cannot say anything about _Atomic. However, for
> std::atomic<__int128>, as __int128 is not an integral type it seems
That depends
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99808
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c9c429cf986c885cf90259866186849de44e1e1f
commit r9-9520-gc9c429cf986c885cf90259866186849de44e1e1f
Author: Kyrylo Tkachov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99808
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bcc4f85667c88f9be098f2671b01831d4b8d9f7c
commit r8-10957-gbcc4f85667c88f9be098f2671b01831d4b8d9f7c
Author: Kyrylo Tkachov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100465
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Maybe another case of PR 51577 but I haven't looked into it yet.
I will say that a templated operator in the global namespace with absolutely no
constraints to limit what it accepts is a very bad idea.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100462
--- Comment #3 from Marco Trevisan ---
Created attachment 50775
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50775&action=edit
strace.log
This is crazy, as even according to strace the file isn't there...
But it is and it's valid.
❯ ls
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100465
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-05-07
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99686
--- Comment #8 from Steven Sun ---
under c++17
Step 4 needs `types_match == 1` [at 1] but, its value is zero, which is caused
by `function_requirements_equivalent_p` [at 3] returns 0 [at 2] .
[1]
https://gcc.gnu.org/git?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100462
--- Comment #4 from Marco Trevisan ---
(In reply to Marco Trevisan from comment #3)
> Created attachment 50775 [details]
> strace.log
>
> This is crazy, as even according to strace the file isn't there...
>
> But it is and it's valid.
> ❯ ls -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100465
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Reduced:
namespace N
{
template
struct string_view
{
using char_type = C;
};
template
struct string
{
void operator+=(const string&);
template
void operator+=(const T&);
};
template
void f()
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100473
--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab ---
$ git grep 'optimize >= 2'
gcc/ChangeLog-2008: 100 for optimize >= 2.
gcc/ChangeLog-2010: only conditionally on optimize >= 2.
gcc/ada/gcc-interface/trans.c:&& optimize >= 2
gcc/c-family/c-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100462
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94649
Niall Douglas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||s_gccbugzilla at nedprod dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80878
--- Comment #35 from Niall Douglas ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #34)
> > Perhaps I ought to open a separate issue here, as my specific problem is
> > that std::atomic<__int128>::compare_exchange_weak() is not using cmpxchg16b?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100440
--- Comment #4 from David.Smith at lmu dot edu ---
> Thanks for reduce this to a testcase. I don't see it attached
> to this email or in bugzilla. gcc.gno.org may have stripped
> the attachment (for some dumb reason). Feel free to send the
>t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100474
Bug ID: 100474
Summary: ICE: in diagnose_trait_expr, at cp/constraint.cc:3706
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100465
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
As a workaround the library could use __str.append or __str.operator+=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100473
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100462
--- Comment #6 from Marco Trevisan ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> As documented - see
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Precompiled-Headers.html - PCH is only
> tried if no C token is seen before the #include directive (com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100462
--- Comment #7 from Marco Trevisan ---
(In reply to Marco Trevisan from comment #6)
> # Works
> g++ -I _build main.c -o main -include string -include gjs_pch.h
Ouch, I forgot to delete an include after pasting
# Works
g++ -I _build main.c -o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93320
vopl at bk dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vopl at bk dot ru
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98218
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5795ec0edc30e077a9900cf3ca0a04ad8ac5ac97
commit r12-615-g5795ec0edc30e077a9900cf3ca0a04ad8ac5ac97
Author: Uros Bizjak
Date: Fri May
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100450
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:170c850e4bd46745e2a5130b5eb09f9fceb98416
commit r12-616-g170c850e4bd46745e2a5130b5eb09f9fceb98416
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100475
Bug ID: 100475
Summary: semiregular-box's constructor uses wrong
list-initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79333
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:601191b2a48cb8f4657bb2fa2270a7fde9d52e9c
commit r12-617-g601191b2a48cb8f4657bb2fa2270a7fde9d52e9c
Author: Christophe Lyon
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100476
Bug ID: 100476
Summary: coroutines: questionable handling of void
get_return_object
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99935
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 50777
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50777&action=edit
Proposed patch
Here is a possible patch for the problem, adding a recursion limit to the
demangle_path() functio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100473
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
--- Comment #3 from Andrew P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88952
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-*-* |powerpc*
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100450
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8482ed658ca77bfd7fc119cd62afd5b70a024500
commit r11-8371-g8482ed658ca77bfd7fc119cd62afd5b70a024500
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100450
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d7c8e6261532e7b2d16221becd5db11ded03e059
commit r10-9810-gd7c8e6261532e7b2d16221becd5db11ded03e059
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100450
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ec910efa1f70e3903091b23e80c5c554b4db6c9b
commit r9-9521-gec910efa1f70e3903091b23e80c5c554b4db6c9b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100450
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e2979f8687f590461bef9f87bd997390af67312e
commit r8-10958-ge2979f8687f590461bef9f87bd997390af67312e
Author: Jakub Jelinek
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100461
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Starke ---
Thank you for the suggestion, however, I am not involved in the mingw-w64
project. Furthermore, the fact that this regression remains against all
versions of mingw-w64 known to date does not change.
It is al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100462
--- Comment #8 from Marco Trevisan ---
It's also relevant to say that just using
main.c:
#include "gjs_pch.h"
int main(int argc, char**argv)
{
std::string s = "Hi";
return 0;
}
fails with:
❯ g++ -I _build main.c -o main -include string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100475
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-05-07
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100475
--- Comment #2 from 康桓瑋 ---
Reduced example:
#include
struct S {
S() = default;
S(int, int) {}
S(std::initializer_list) = delete;
};
std::ranges::single_view single(std::in_place, 0, 0);
https://godbolt.org/z/d1bE8sPdd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100477
Bug ID: 100477
Summary: Bogus -Wstringop-overflow warning on memset
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87839
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3488242b9a949ebc55b4a857380f94506f90ff76
commit r8-10959-g3488242b9a949ebc55b4a857380f94506f90ff76
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Da
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
